Double-A wrote:
Michael Baldwin Bruce wrote:
Dickless Davie whined:

[expunged]


Non sequitur.


Just how many 370 kg meteorites do you think hit a target smaller than
10 km in diameter over the span of a few weeks, Van Flandern?

Non sequitur.

... millions

But are you refering to galaxy-wide or the whole universe ?

[voided]

I'd much rather see Drs. Tholen and Van Flandern debating in
alt.astronomy than the daily Bruce and Deco show!

Double-A

And now for a serious question ...

From http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/news_detail.cfm?ID=162 ...

' ... However, the fraction of the new NEAs that are larger than 1 km
has declined from about 25 percent of discoveries to near 10 percent.
The reason we are finding fewer large NEAs is not a failure of the
search systems but rather a real depletion in the population of
undiscovered large NEAs. It is, thus, a measure of the success of the
program. ... '

.... there, now seems to be some sense of confidence as to knowing the
number of NEOs within the proscribed orbital delineation.

As per ' Close Approach Tables ' ( See
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/neo_ca ), an estimate of NEO collisions
with the Earth arising from the proscribed orbital delineation can be
made for an extended interval of time.

Bottom line ?

Does collision with the Earth from this source represent a sizable
proportion of disruptive collisions ?

In short, could the catalogue represented by the NEO program be a
non-issue; that the bulk of significant strikes are coming from
elsewhere ?

RL